mozzaok wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:


A moral one, then. It is certainly not a scientific judgement.

Harris is arguing for a scientific basis for morality BUT he argues from a moral premise. AND you are asking me if I am fair dinkum???

Out of curiosity - if you are happy to go along with this crazy idea (lets make scientists the arbiters of human interactions), on what grounds do you appeal to common sense? Is THAT not a ready application of non-scientific morality? Even calculating utility is based on a moral judgement when it creates the hierarchy of what goods should be enhanced and what diminished.

This is all a very muddled sort of idea but obviously the guy is clear-sighted enough to discern that there are enough people to  whom this sort of thing appeals so he wrote a book and made a small fortune out of credulous people. Happens every day.

It is scientific in the fact that it is seeking to identify moral imperatives that would be constant across religious and cultural boundaries, and prejudices.

It is an attempt to create some uniform guidelines, by studying behaviour, and attitudes, and by having people other than religious leaders alone being accepted as capable of telling society what should and should not be acceptable behaviour.

How abortion would come out of the study I could not predict, and I agree that there is a large part of it which is simply moral relativism, but it is more than just that, it is more along the lines of it is time to get serious about just what, how, and why, we consider and define actions as moral.

I fundamentally agree with your last statement FD, we already do have moral questions examined in a more scientific fashion, in "Ethics", and it is studied along philosophical lines.

I have watched the video again, so I will have another go at putting across what Harris actually said, and will quote him in some places.
   --------------------------------------------------------
My precis of what he said, take two.

FACTS & VALUES are not necessarily belonging to different spheres, we derive our values from observing facts.

He defines "Values" as "Facts" about the wellbeing of conscious creatures, and that all values are reducible to a concern about conscious experience.

The condition of the "consciousness of wellbeing", can be observed through a "continuum of facts".
Observation let's us observe truths we can agree on.
These truths revealed by observation, show us that there are right and wrong answers to how humans flourish.
He then goes on and describes the moral landscape as having many peaks and troughs, so there can be more than one "right" answer to questions.
He uses nutrition, and health as analogies, with nutrition he points out there are an abundance of good foods we can choose, not just one, so because we may be able to define many positive moral precepts, does not mean we cannot identify negative ones, which range from foods that are just not as good for us, through to things that are poisonous, and these negative values occupy the moral troughs, and do not aid humans in flourishing.

He then says how religious demagogues agree with him that we need a universal conception of human values, but they declare their values are from divine sources, and he thinks we could do better by using critical analysis of observation, by utilising a "domain of expertise".
The domain of expertise term, is saying that not everybody's opinion is as valid as the next guy's, he asks if we would consult the Taliban on questions of physics, and asks is their attitudes to advancing human wellbeing any more worthy of consideration in the field of morals, than their knowledge of physics is to science?
In all fields there are those who stand out as leading experts, and morals should be no different, in recognising, and valuing their opinions more highly.

He finishes his talk with graphics showing both extremist muslims and christians each holding up placards depicting violent, hateful messages, and says we have been told we need to respect and understand different cultures, and different societies, but we cannot allow that to then stop us from addressing whether or not what they are offering is right or wrong.
To demand tolerance for what we know is wrong makes no more sense than demanding we tolerate no disease control standards for society.
To address that we must first agree that we can define what is right or wrong, that we are capable of defining the answers to moral questions.

Quote:


Yes this is one of the most annoying aspects of videos in debate. If you want to make a serious point, put it in writing.

Quote:


I think he would lose a few followers there.

Quote:


Whether they flourish does not necesarily have anything to do with ethics or morality.

Quote:


I don't think that gets you anywhere. You just have a bunch of 'experts' or 'respected people' disagreeing over the same issues the less noble disagree on. I disagree that recognising the contribution of experts will help. As far as the academic experts go, I don't think the field of study has progressed to a point where it can actually contirbute anything useful.

Quote:


True, but hardly a revelation.

Quote:


I am starting to suspect that this is merely an underhanded attack on religion, by equating the religious with extremists and their apologists. He is imagining a problem that needs to be overcome, but the problem does not actually exist. There is genuine disagreement on moral issues, but it has nothing to do with extremists and their agendas. It comes from moderate, rational people trying to calmly overcome genuine moral quandries.

Quote:


This is what makes me think his use of video was aimed at assisting the association fallacy, or maybe just preaching to the converted. I see plenty of loons trying to use science to justify morally reprehensible positions, and religious leaders combatting it. But to frame the debate in terms of 'scientific loons' vs 'religious people with integrity' would be deceitful and unethical, just as it is to equate the contribution of religion or religious leaders with fanatics as this guy has done. It seems less like a genuine attempt at morality and more like a cheap shot at religion. His treatment of ethics and morality is juvenile and superficial and seem like just another way to get his message against religion out under some kind of banner that gives him credibility.

You still haven't explained how his methods are in any way scientific. He seems just as dogmatic, but under a different banner.

Am I right that by asking those people who are considered to be moral leaders, he really just means asking non-religious people, and that non-religious people get to decide who the leaders are? Or is that just your spin on it? Because otherwise he just reintroduces the same quandires he is trying to avoid. Or perhaps he means that morality should be a democratic thing, and that once non-religious people become a majority they should take over deciding what is right and wrong? Whatever his position is, he seems to be putting morality second to his quest against religion.

Quote:


Doesn't the fact that we can use the two terms without confusion indicate that this is already the case? Is this just the old argument that atheists can have morals too?

Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

If this guy is claiming to be scientific, perhaps he should firmly establish this assumption first.

No Soren... you are wrong Morality should be based on science 
let's choose biology and lets use survival of the fitest as a model.
We can now go an kill off all those unfit people keeping us down.